Ask not what your union can do for you... discuss.

[FlyingTinCans]

It seems Pilots dissatisfied with BALPA has defiantly risen, maybe in this recession people are looking for someone to blame.

But as a few people have already pointed out BALPA don’t have many resources, yet because of the small membership base our fees are the same for much larger unions.

Maybe its time for a new union in these times of change? Unite for instance already represents our cabin crew. They are much larger, the largest I think and therefore have more pulling power and more resources.

It would only work of course if we all went, otherwise another union would only dilute our current representation.

[CheekyVisual]

The use of LIFO in the situation you are refering to was not illegal under EU age disc law but was actually illegal under current UK employment legislation which now states only positions not people may be made redundant. i.e. you can no longer make a pilot at base A redundant and immediately replace him or her with a pilot from base B who is of higher seniority. I have heard the "we are all un based" arguement but the lawyers can't get around the fact that we are all essentialy "based" even if your contract doesn't say it.

Rightly or wrongly the right legal decisions were made no matter how unfair it may have been to those of higher seniority, to whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I am sure BALPA would have got some kind of legal injunction immediately if this was not the case. I believe they are now looking for individuals to take the risk and bring a case, I'm legally advised won't be won.

Your "Legally Binding" contract is only "Legally Binding" until a cleverer lawyer picks it pieces. Facts of life unfortunately.

[M.Mouse]

It seems Pilots dissatisfied with BALPA has defiantly risen, maybe in this recession people are looking for someone to blame.

Which survey showed that?

But as a few people have already pointed out BALPA don’t have many resources, yet because of the small membership base our fees are the same for much larger unions.

Compared to other unions fees are higher and membership is lower. But the organisation employs people of very high calibre and does a great deal more work than people realise.

Maybe its time for a new union in these times of change? Unite for instance already represents our cabin crew. They are much larger, the largest I think and therefore have more pulling power and more resources.

Unite is a disaster for BA CC as was BASSA before the takeover. Moronic leadership, no strategy and nothing but inaccurate propaganda to feed the mob who have neither the intelligence nor drive to actually figure out the facts for themselves.

It would only work of course if we all went, otherwise another union would only dilute our current representation.

The only accurate statement in your ridiculous post.

[Barden]

Here here M.Mouse. He's on the money.

Unfortunately PPRuNe is often a haven for malcontents and those with unwholesome agendas.

I lurk around this bulletin board sometimes but very rarely contribute.

If I want sensible debate I go to our BALPA or even the company website, both of don't allow anonymity and therefore contributors are self moderating as they have to publically stand behind their words .

Over and out, Barden.

EDIT just to say if you're not happy, BALPA is your best hope. If you're happy, BALPA is your best hope to stay so. If you're not happy with BALPA, you're probably not happy with your CC or the past performance of your CC - in this case, get backbone and stand for election.

[Rainboe]

Agreed. I've been paying BALPA membership since Jan 1971. I won't even pretend to calculate what 1% of my pay is from £160 per month to over £10,000 per month in my time there, and since in another company! But I will say it was worth it. I have found BALPA to be dispassionate and fair. I have resorted to advice from them, and been guided in a redundancy situation. Rather than looking on it as a 'fee', it should be seen as an 'investment' which returns enhanced pay and conditions. I wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the benefits I ended up being remunerated with if I had been negotiating for myself over the years. Sadly, we all know colleagues who are only too happy to come along for the free ride and accept union-negotiated benefits without question whilst not contributing to the pool that finances those enhancements! BALPA is after the fairest settlement for the most people. If you feel you were one of the ones 'shafted' by BALPA, you have to try and step back and see the big picture and how the law lies. All these settlements in disputes have a company behind them as the driving force. BALPA is always having to fight a rear guard action and trying to achieve an equitable settlement. Sadly, those from 'walking dead' companies feel that BALPA screwed them when it looked at the circumstances and tried to do the best it could under adverse circumstances. The villain of the piece is not BALPA!

[BOAC]

Based on the conduct of BALPA over the whole of the DanAir takeover and in particular the definitive 'legal' (incorrect) advice they offered to the redundant pilots, I would endorse again Parabellum's and my advice to look and see if there is any mileage in bringing your own action as a group. We who were 'kept on' took legal opinion and were advised that we had a case against BA or BALPA (the Siamese twins) over the destruction of seniority BUT that it would cost a lot to fight it. Since we had already been docked 10% of pay by BA we prudently elected not to proceed, but a lot resigned from BALPA over the handling. A difficult decision for you, excrab, and I wish you well. The problem is that there really is no realistic alternative to BALPA. You have to hope you are in the right lodge when the time comes to turn to them for help.

[captplaystation]

As someone who worked formerly (and much of it unhappily) for B ritish M asons I nternational I have to say that placing any faith in your CC is perhaps a little optimistic. Are you trying to tell me that the long honoured purpose of the CC to be "groomed" as future managers is no longer being respected.
Personally I think you have been treated shockingly. It is either LIFO or a free-for-all as it would be for instance in Ryanair, and even THEY offered the incumbents places at other bases the last time a base (VLC) was closed.
If it is (and it should ) be LIFO, lets cut the cr@p about costs to the company due re-basing etc etc. I doubt excrab would have refused a base transfer at his own expense as an alternative to "the Loughborough effect"
It should be based entirely on D.O.J and those joining on the same day should be separated by rank (sorry F/O's but a Capt can occupy either seat ) followed by either date of licence or flying hours. Even @ 51yrs old I don't support ageism even if it's in my favour.
No surprises at your spineless CC ,but did you try and take it higher up the BALPA food chain ? I see you have said that they advised against action, but did you push the issue ? may be a waste of time, but I would certainly make myself a thorn in their side until they did something for me.

[Rainboe]

If it is (and it should ) be LIFO......It should be based entirely on D.O.J .......

What it should be and what the law is are very different animals. When a company closes a factory in Hicksville, it doesn't move the more senior hands to Dogsville and and make redundant junior Dogsville workers. You're not understanding what our lawmakers made of the law about this issue. If Hicksville jobs go, only Hicksville workers can fill the redundant figures- remember it is the job that goes, not the person. When Dan Air went, it was a zombie company- walking dead. Any jobs that could be salvaged from it were on the plus side. The only reason bits were taken in to BA was to get the assets that were available- the slots. BA 'owed' nobody who was not subsequently employed anything. The ones that were employed came into a pilot force that was not short of people. It is sad to think people carry around for years such aggressive resentment when their company failed because of internal causes, not external. Any jobs that can be rescued after a failure are positive, but to think after a failure somebdy is supposed to move heads around and chop the hindmost is not noticing that the law is now involved. When your company goes belly up, you have no rights. That BA paid out to the redundant staff of another defunct company is to its credit.

Sorry if it is brutal, but its also plain logic. If people are going to be carrying these resentments around for years, they must be prepared to hear a counter argument.

[BOAC]

Rainboe - try to get your wild-eyed bolting stallion back into its stable please. The issue being discussed is whether BALPA is serving its members, not whether DanAir was 'walking dead' as you put it (a view-point, incidentally, that the city guru David James (who was in charge of DA's re-construction at the time) failed to notice - I'm sure he'd be interested in your expert assessment) BA were wrong and BALPA were wrong on the matter. That is a matter of fact. BALPA may be wrong in excrab's case too.

That BA paid out to the redundant staff of another defunct company is to its credit.

- keep taking those tablets - they had no choice!

[Rainboe]

Rather intemperate words! The fact remains that nobody blames you for coming from a defunct company. You still were offered employment and took the money as well, so why the big chip on your shoulder? I know it's happened again to you, but some might say that is no surprise. And what is this bizarre interest in the tablets I take (vitamin B and Cod Liver Oil since you ask)? Do you think by becoming personal and insulting you get your point over better? Dan Air was discussed because it was the last big time take-over/redundancy before the present crisis and presumably is useful for experience purposes. Some people seem to think somehow they are moulded to the job, not just a name filling a slot- a slot that at any time can vanish. When it does, there is a lot of shouting because someone else's name was not in that slot.

[captplaystation]

Rainboe, agree entirely, if your company goes down the tubes, or is only saved from doing so by someone else, the "someone else" with the bucks can cherry-pick what they want or not.
However, if a company is merely downsizing, it is Oh too convenient just to say BHX ? Out ! or as Virgin tried to do post 9/11, 747Classic rated ? Out !
I sincerely believe that if the principal of time in company is not respected, it is a very short step indeed to eat or be eaten for everyone. Yet more of the Beanies favourite snack , " divide & conquer".
I think it is entirely approppriate that you can lose your job in EMA because BHX is closing and someone senior wants your place, equally I think a Union with any b@lls whatsoever should (as In Virgin) absolutely insist that you remain in employment even if "your" fleet is reduced if you are the senior man (or woman )
I agree, the law may not say so, but then sometimes the law is an @ss and that is what a union should be doing, not just meekly quoting "it isn't the law", but saying "Sod off, it's not fair , we don't accept, everyone out" otherwise why bother paying for a union ? might as well just hire a solicitor or go to the Citizens Advice Bureau when the sh1t hits the fan and save on the union subs.

[BOAC]

I really can only repeat "The issue being discussed is whether BALPA is serving its members, not whether DanAir was 'walking dead' as you put it" which seems to be sailing completely over your head!

You enjoying this, excrab?

[Rainboe]

Funny. You were the one who raised Dan Air in post 7! I think you have too much spare time on your hands these days. Must be getting forgetful.

Nothing further to add!

And Dan Air was an anachronism. When you're dead, you shouldn't be trying to walk. Anyone who walked out of that Dodo with a job should have fallen at their new employers feet. BALPA did well on you.

[excrab]

BOAC,

I don't think that enjoy is the word. However, it is noticeable that whenever Balpa is discussed on this forum the vast majority of it's supporters seem to be those who where trained at Hamble and have only ever worked for one employer, and who traditionally enjoy huge benefits due to being balpa members.

It was stated in a previous post that Balpa has finite resources. That obviously is true - but don't forget that the Balpa full time staff (principle negotiators, secretaries etc etc) very nearly went on strike at the end of last year, over the preservation of their own final salary pension scheme, a benefit that few pilots in the uk now enjoy.

So their finite resources mean that they can fund a hugely expensive final salary pension scheme, but not support members in a legal action.

Can someone explain how that is serving the membership?

[BOAC]

Well, now that this has quietened down again, I wish you well in whatever decision you choose to make.

[xrba]

The purpose of this thread is not to dissect the parlous financial state of DANAIR, or the unsurprising rapacity of BA during the take-over, [you don’t get a book published about you called ‘Dirty Tricks” for nothing do you?] It is to discuss the support the union will give you in a crisis, and that must include reference to BALPA’s treachery over the whole DANAIR issue.

BALPA can scarcely have totally supported BA’s disembowelling of DANAIR without prior connivance, but when, a couple of years later, half the sacked pilots, [the Action Group] took BA to court, funding from their own pockets what they mistakenly thought they had paid union dues for over the last several decades there was an oppurtunity for BALPA to make amends. The DAPAG won the court case that BALPA refused to take, but when the tribunals’ decision proved to be so perverse, ie BA was guilty of breaking the contracts, but need do nothing about it at all, BALPA could have partially redeemed itself by simply saying now we will take over the fight against this ludicrous decision by funding an appeal, impossible for the DAPAG to financially contemplate.

Fat chance. BA had suspended all pilot recruitment to add credence to the lie that they didn’t need any pilots at the time, whereas in fact they were running very short. The pressure imposed on them by this during the time taken to get the matter to a higher court could well have resulted in a far better settlement for the DAPAG than the crumbs from the king’s table that they actually received. Isn’t that precisely what you pay a union for?

If you wish to join BALPA because you are terrified of being alone in the unlikely event of you clipping a bowser at night, or you can see no other way to a training slot than becoming a BALPA rep and selling your colleagues down the river at pay deal time why not sign up, just don’t expect me to accompany you.

[parabellum]

The final demise of Dan Air wasn't quite so clear cut as some would have us believe. I know one of the top people involved in trying to save Dan, they required six more weeks to restructure and keep a viable operation going.

The 'money men' would not give them that six weeks, it is rumoured, (this is PPRuNe), that pressure was put on the money men, from where? who knows, but if it originated with BA it certainly wouldn't be the first time they have used their contacts with government to engineer a decision to their liking.

BAs insurance cover renewal in 1983 immediately springs to mind.

[M.Mouse]

However, it is noticeable that whenever Balpa is discussed on this forum the vast majority of it's supporters seem to be those who where trained at Hamble and have only ever worked for one employer, and who traditionally enjoy huge benefits due to being balpa members.

Unsubstantiated rubbish. I and many colleagues do not fall into that category.

......or you can see no other way to a training slot than becoming a BALPA rep and selling your colleagues down the river at pay deal time why not sign up.....

What a risible comment and a disgusting slur.

The final demise of Dan Air wasn't quite so clear cut as some would have us believe. I know one of the top people involved in trying to save Dan, they required six more weeks to restructure and keep a viable operation going.

The 'money men' would not give them that six weeks, it is rumoured, (this is PPRuNe), that pressure was put on the money men, from where? who knows, but if it originated with BA it certainly wouldn't be the first time they have used their contacts with government to engineer a decision to their liking.

BAs insurance cover renewal in 1983 immediately springs to mind.

I do love a good conspiracy theory. Why don't we mention British Caledonian which also wasn't bust but forced into a takeover by underhand and illegal moves by big bad BA?

A bit like the ailing car industry crying out for government funds the point is being missed that if people aren't buying or paying a price which can sustain your company all the refinancing in the world does not alter stark reality.

Being made redundant is hideous for the people involved and their families (I know from experience) but to keep trying to blame everything under the sun for your predicament and ignoring the facts........

[Rainboe]

This thread was being used as a vehicle to discuss (and criticise) BALPA's ethics and usefullness for pilots. It's inevitable with a discussion like this, Dan Air is raised (not by me!) and it is of no surprise that it always happens. IF BALPA is being questioned, whilst I sympathise that some people may have occasionally felt they were short changed by BALPA, that is no reason to make unsubstantiated and false accusations against that organisation. Exactly those accusations are made against US ALPA as well. There are always going to be perceived 'winners' and 'losers' out of any industrial disagreements. In the case of accusations and slurs against the organisation, there are going to be robust defences.

I find it difficult to see how we can stand on our seniority system for redundancies at bases when the law has changed to counter it. ANY other business closing a base or centre makes redundancies at that base. The law has said the job goes at that base. Age discrimination also applies. What we once thought was right is being undermined by the law. It does us no credit to try and force a company to make expensive base changes first. It saves nobody's job and just raises expenses for a company trying to save money.

There was always the suspicion that BALPA was a BA pilots union. With less than a third of the membership (I think, judging by numbers), this accusation needs some justification! BA pilots were always highly unionised, and this makes membership far more effective. Those from airlines where membership is low and in a minority inevitably lose effectiveness. I am now in an independent and feel my membership is still totally worthwhile, and I have found the Association useful for help and advice, even unasked for. I don't see it as a 'BA Association' at all. I think over the BCAL and Dan Air affairs, it trod an incredibly fair and equitable path considering the circumstances. There are always perceived winners and losers, and the losers feel aggrieved. They need to put themselves in the other 'side's' shoes and try and see how it appears from there. A merger is different to a takeover is different to a rescue of a failed company. It's sad to carry resentments for 15 or 20 years, but it is no justification to make unfounded accusations or critical comments, when very often, one has accepted 'compensation' (for what?).

[xrba]

Well, somewhere , over the rainboe, there are people that think that BALPA “over the DANAIR affair trod an incredibly fair and equitable path considering the circumstances”. Says it all really.